It has come to a handful of people's attention that at least some of the newly elected moderators might not be exactly up to challenge.
Here's a message that very clearly demonstrates this incompetence, that was a result of a particular argument that appeared in one of the SO chatrooms:

Madara Uchiha wrote:

This room was placed in timeout for 2 minutes; the topic of this room is "We offer degrees in type seduction. " - conversation should be limited to that topic.
Let's get this straight.
We don't disallow swearing in our chatrooms
We don't prevent you from saying what you want.

But when we see you discussion about how girls prefer having sex, what are we supposed to think?
I don't really care about how you discuss here
But there is a limit
And that limit was reached.
The reaction from the user absolutely did not help, so it escalated.

If you don't want mods intervention, don't do things that require mod intervention.

Bartek Banachewicz wrote:

@MadaraUchiha not to sound aggressive or anything, but IIRC you became a mod a few days ago. I don't think declaring a war on lounge is the best way to start your modding career.

Madara Uchiha wrote:

@BartekBanachewicz Are you sure?
Because I've had a really long day, and a war sounds very good to me. Test me.

This would've been perfectly fine if it came from one of the debating parties. The individuals here are very passionate and discussions tend get heated. However, this came from a moderator, someone who's supposed to maintain professionalism.

Now, to be fair, this wasn't just a lone message. The context for that message in particular was a message from one user that was ultimately deemed inappropriate by the moderators (despite it being quite harmless to everyone else). As it often happens with such cases, the actual problem was blown out of proportion. Sometimes this happens because someone suddenly chooses to reach into chat transcript to find and analyze all possibly inappropriate messages. Sometimes, like this time, a person doesn't stop after a ban is inflicted on someone. What was done in this case is the person first said that

We don't prevent you from saying what you want.

Followed by locking the room to make a personally appointed statement, followed by what turned out to be a provocative demonstration of power.

This behavior, of course, is unacceptable. A moderator should be a person above such discussions. Becoming a moderator implies that the user promises to moderate (and mediate!). Actively provoking like in the observed case, when it's full known that the person possesses moderator privileges and is essentially threatening to use them is a strong indication that the person might not be perfectly fit for the role.

This means that the community may have failed at picking an appropriate curator. Mistakes do happen; after all, we're only human, and if these mistakes happen, they should be able to be fixed. Moderator status is a privilege which should be able to be revoked by the same body of people that had granted it: the community.

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

126

So you're complaining because a mod used an entirely warranted moderation action in response to repeated inappropriate behavior from users who felt that the new mod wouldn't dare actually use their mod tools in response to said inappropriate behavior? I'm not seeing a problem here at all. Even your quote, taken entirely out of context, seems only mildly aggressive, and in context seems entirely fine. Being a mod doesn't mean you have to act like a kindergarden teacher.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 1:42

12

From an outsider/mod perspective, it really feels like there's some cherry picking going on. Bookmarking the actual context and linking it would be awesome.
– Journeyman GeekDec 2 '15 at 1:43

@BartekBanachewicz And I'm saying that he's very clearly on the former side of that line. He's not saying he'll do whatever he wants, he's saying that if you break the rules, you'll face the appropriate consequences, and that he won't just back down from taking an appropriate moderation action just because he's new.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 1:46

Also related: the last time The Lounge was frozen. Note that the last time this happened, it wasn't a two-minute timeout... Perhaps the newb mistake here was trying to conduct a conversation instead of just shutting the room down and imposing some order.
– Shog9♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:06

30

Well, that didn't take long. You can practically set your watch by the time it takes between the completion of a moderator election and the first complaints to show up on Meta.
– Robert Harvey♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:08

18

Is sending the freshly elected mods to the Lounge some kind of rite of passage?
– user703016Dec 2 '15 at 2:12

42

@BartekBanachewicz That sentiment would mean something if you weren't one of the people causing the problem in the first place. That you seem to think that "no moderation" == "good moderation" is exactly the problem here.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:42

45

I hope the voting on this question lets our new moderators know that most of us have faith in them and hope they keep at it :)
– sevenseacatDec 2 '15 at 3:04

40

Shortly after that discussion the following message was posted: "...and some mods have shown themselves to be filth who don't deserve air to breathe, not to mention moderator privileges." It was flagged and removed, which lead to protests from pretty much the entire room. If almost an entire room seems incapable of constructive discourse it is no wonder that these situation tend to just blow up instead of being resolved quietly.
– Mad ScientistDec 2 '15 at 7:01

44

Speaking as a complete outsider: why are you using SO chat? Just find an IRC server with the hands-off moderation you want.
– Jeffrey BosboomDec 2 '15 at 7:28

19

I don't see anything wrong with Madara's Reaction here. In fact, seeing this makes me happy that I swayed from my original vote set to vote for him.
– MagischDec 2 '15 at 8:21

20

Wait, this was the Lounge? Nuke it from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.
– WillDec 2 '15 at 18:04

45

Reopening this. It's nominally on-topic, and although I'd advised the room regulars to let it drop, they appear to be all about continuing the argument as long as possible - therefore, I'm using their responses here as input in a proposal I'm drafting for new chat guidelines. As the old saying goes: when life gives you lemons, rub them all over and enjoy the sensation.
– Shog9♦Dec 2 '15 at 21:23

9 Answers
9

This is an extremely distorted depiction of what happened in the C++ Lounge earlier today.

What actually happened was this: Stack Overflow moderators received several flags about offensive messages in the C++ Lounge. Among the messages that we saw in that chatroom was the following (warning: language):

Most women want at least something of a date before they fuck. The ones who don't, you (or certainly I, anyway) probably want to avoid.

When confronted about this completely inappropriate conversation happening in a public chatroom, several members of this room fought back against moderators and SE staff. One of them told an SE staff member

breaking news, you can't dare consider women are more than just fuck bags

and then proceeded to be rude and abusive to said staff member in a private chat. They were suspended from the site. This further set off other members of this chatroom.

Madara Uchiha has taken a more active role in moderating chat, and has attempted to bridge the gap in rooms where we've had behavioral issues and complaints. I think he's actually done a very good job of this. He, along with Ed Cottrell, decided to step in and try to make it clear that this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable on this site.

Again, this was not responded to in a constructive manner. You can read the whole transcript around that comment, if you'd like. I think it was simply frustration with the whole C++ Lounge coming out, since members of that Lounge feel that they are above the rules of this site.

Frankly, if it were up to me, I'd freeze the whole room and be done with it. The C++ Lounge has been getting away with completely unacceptable and unprofessional behavior for years. I welcome the members of the Stack Overflow community to read the last few days of the transcript from the Lounge and to give us a reason why this chatroom should be allowed to continue.

Sometimes, I'm not sure some Loungers have a good idea of what "professionalism" actually means...
– AzaDec 2 '15 at 2:00

61

@ElimGarak - Other chatrooms don't get flagged for conversations about women "liking rape" (which horrified multiple moderators from other sites when they saw it earlier today). This doesn't happen in other chatrooms, only the Lounge. Why is that?
– Brad Larson♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:02

62

@BartekBanachewicz I see over a dozen posts by Madara preceding the quote in the OP that are entirely reasonable attempts to explain and dissolve the situation. This was met with hostility and repeated inappropriate behavior by others, challenging their very right to enforce the moderation policies that they are required to uphold. That this eventually culminated, after repeated attempts to dissolve the situation, in the statement that he would not in fact back down to threats by others and held firm in his position that he'd enforce the site's rules is exactly what I'd expect of a mod.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:03

58

Ok I was on the fence until the rape thing. Shut it down. Jeez.
– CliveDec 2 '15 at 2:04

27

@BartekBanachewicz When, in response to said flagged content being moderated, the rest of the room starts objecting to the moderation of the content, continues posting more inappropriate content, and starts picking fights with the moderators to claim that they don't have the right to moderate the room, I'd say yes, holding the room accountable for that would be appropriate. Had one person said one bad thing, the content been flagged, removed, and everyone else been glad to be rid of the inappropriate content, that would be different.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:09

@BartekBanachewicz - So here's the thing about that awful comment I posted above. It was only found when someone read the transcript, because apparently members of the room were instructed not to flag it: chat.stackoverflow.com/messages/27182392/history . That's members of the room intentionally circumventing the system to protect themselves, and I find that completely unacceptable.
– Brad Larson♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:10

@CatPlusPlus So you don't think highly inappropriate content should ever be removed, because if it is, you couldn't prove to someone else that the inappropriate content was said? The fact that you apparently don't think that any content should be moderated simply tells me that you shouldn't be on an SE chat in the first place. You're not looking for a professional chat room, you're looking for an entirely casual unmoderated chat room. That's fine, and there's god knows ho many of those on the internet. Why are you trying to hang out on one that doesn't feel that any content is allowable?
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:20

20

...Right. To answer the question posed in this answer (ironically enough), enough is enough. I trust the mods' judgment enough in this scenario to do what's best for the site on this one. If this means that this chatroom is nuked from orbit, I'll supply the ICBMs if need be.
– MakotoDec 2 '15 at 2:24

28

@CatPlusPlus: I'll admit: the way you're arguing about this doesn't do your side any favors. I've looked at the evidence and I'm inclined to agree with much of what has transpired on the part of the mods.
– MakotoDec 2 '15 at 2:26

37

I just spent about 35 minutes reading the transcript for the C++ room and have to say that it looks just as bad as some of the worst reddit threads I've seen. #disgusted
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 2:35

23

@ElimGarak I think it's been shown very clearly that this is in no way just blind reaction to isolated words devoid of context. Taken in context, all of the quoted comments that have been given as examples really are highly offensive, and intentionally so. This isn't the case of someone just f*cking including some d*mn swearwords in inoffensive statements.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:35

19

@Jefery He wasn't suspended for that one comment alone. That comment just caused mods to join the room and tell people to tone it down. The response to being told that such discussions aren't appropriate was what resulted in the suspensions and room freeze.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:39

I was debating posting my own answer, now that Brad Larson's answer pretty much covers everything. But this post is about "the newly elected moderators," which obviously includes me, and I want to add a couple of comments that won't fit in a comment on Brad's answer.

The Lounge today veered well off the tracks, including a large number of obscene comments, including the ones that Brad quoted and some others that don't bear repeating here or anywhere else. This drew some flags and caught the attention of quite a few of the moderators.

Bluefeet, Jon Clements, Madara, and I attempted to steer the room back to civil conversation. None of the (many) moderators who were in the room at any point today tried to silence anyone. What we tried to do was address the most offensive and often obscene commentary during this isolated episode. I tried to be respectful to all involved, and I'm sure all of the other moderators who were in The Lounge today did the same.

Personally, I don't enjoy moderating chat, but it's a responsibility that comes with being a moderator. And as I've said before, everyone is welcome to have fun and have completely off-topic conversations in chat. Frankly, I personally don't care what people talk about. But the moderators have a job to do. That job is mostly janitorial work, and sometimes it boils down to sewage treatment, but somebody's got to do it.

We will continue to do our work professionally and as nicely as possible. That sometimes means deploying the tools at our disposal to suspend, ban, kick, or otherwise remove a user from a chat room. Sometimes, it means deleting an over-the-line post from the chat history. Sometimes, it means opening a private chat room with a user. Most times, it just means making some comments to steer things back on the tracks. We try the comments approach first; other approaches are deployed only when necessary.

Today, a few of the more severe approaches were necessary, and various moderators employed them. This happened because of the comments of users in The Lounge, including the comments that got our attention in the first place. We don't moderate what doesn't exist.

@Jefery To be clear, I'm not saying that it had been in "civil conversation" territory anytime recently.
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:39

6

We have been uncivil? You know what's uncivil? Using mod powers to shut down people trying to reply to your accusations. That's uncivil and unprofessional.
– ShoeDec 2 '15 at 2:41

34

@Jefery A two minute time out, to give people a moment to cool their heads, after spending over and hour explaining to people why, exactly the actions were taken, despite continued inappropriate and abusive responses from the community, (and then resuming said discussion immediately after that short time out) is not "shutting down people trying to reply to accusations".
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:45

@Jefery No one got shut down and prevented from responding. If you mean the timeout, it had nearly zero impact on the conversation and was necessary to stall the flood of comments for a mere 2 minutes.
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:48

6

@Jefery Cosh got suspended due his extremely over-the-top comments and rude behavior in one-on-one chat with a moderator. I don't know anything about bans or suspensions of the others.
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 2:50

24

@Jefery They demonstrated a complete inability to act civilly, and made it clear that they had no intention of constructively discussing the issue. They weren't banned for disagreeing with a moderation action, they were banned due to the significant amounts of highly inappropriate content they were posting. That someone disagrees with a mod doesn't excuse them from posting highly offensive and insulting material.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 2:51

@CatPlusPlus And had you expressed that sentiment constructively, you wouldn't have been suspended. Instead you decided to protest your perceived moderation of appropriate behavior by posting content that you clearly knew (and intended to be) offensive. That it resulted in the suspension (that you literally asked for) should not be surprising. If you express your concerns about the rooms moderation constructively, then an actual dialogue can take place.
– ServyDec 2 '15 at 3:09

9

Ed, I voted for you and I am pleased to have you on board as a moderator. A professional post here and although I'm not reinventing the wheel in anything I'm saying here. I merely offering you my voice of support as a community member. Keep up the good work.
– Yvette Colomb♦Dec 2 '15 at 15:27

Extinguishing tire fires is difficult. The fire releases a dark, thick smoke that contains carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and products of butadiene and styrene. Burning tires are heated and as they have a low thermal conductivity, they are difficult to cool down. Moreover, they frequently burn inside even if they are extinguished from outside, and easily reignite when hot.

I originally thought about tire fires as an analogy for another site altogether, but I'm afraid there are several chat rooms smoldering away around the network. It's only a question of which ones will flame up next. This time it was the C++ Lounge which isn't a stranger to spreading toxic fumes around:

I've heard from Stack Overflow moderators who want nothing to do with that room. It's got a rotten reputation among many hardened chat users. As long as I've been working as a Community Manager, the Lounge has been a by word of everything wrong with chat moderation. We've known about this problem and we haven't done what's needed to put out the fire.

Let's be clear: chat is bound to our Be Nice policy. What I read this afternoon goes far beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. That some moderators (and a former moderator) chose to step in to mediate was courageous and welcome. They did a fine job considering the hostile environment they were working in.

I've seen many of the some bogus arguments tossed around when a chat room flares up:

We always talk like this. It's our room culture.

This is often true after a fashion. Some rooms are generally more crass than the rest of the network. As a third place that's not only natural, it's part of the chat system's function. But that does not make chat or any particular room a safe harbor for every type of crude behavior. If you don't have a filter to prevent crossing the line, your room doesn't really have a culture.

In context, the chat message was not offensive.

Context is critical to interpretation. But a wise user of chat must be aware that anything they say might be seen out of context. It's doubly true of chat message that are likely to draw flags. If people misunderstand the message because it depends on context, that's your fault, not theirs. Besides, when I look into situations like that, the context doesn't usually make those message innocent—context just makes them less horrific.

If it weren't for those oversensitive flaggers, there'd be no problems here.

Sure. And if there weren't any whistleblowers, corruption would never be detected either. The question isn't whether or not the person reporting the problem is oversensitive. Rather the question is if they are reporting a real problem. (Hint: the people handling chat flags dislike bogus flags too.)

It was a joke. I was being sarcastic.

So, we've known for a long time that:

Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.—Poe's Law

The solution is similarly well-known, you moron. ;-)

That said, no combination of emoticons will fix jokes that aren't funny or sarcasm that isn't insightful.

I don't know how to solve the problem, exactly. We could always try the tire fire solution:

One possible remedy is to cover the fire with soil, reducing the supply of oxygen and the exhaust of smoke. After extinguishing and cooling down (which may last several days), toxic chemicals can be neutralized.

"If people misunderstand the message because it depends on context, that's your fault, not theirs." Absolutely not. You're entering very dangerous territory there. I also don't understand how you can claim this a couple sentences after saying "Context is critical to interpretation."
– orlpDec 2 '15 at 3:09

14

@orlp: Yes. This is a good illustration of what I mean. The first quote taken out of context is clearly flawed. But I wrote the entire post and included the qualifying sentence beforehand. I hope that as a reader you will take both sentences together and try to make sense of them. I would not have that luxury if I'd posted this in chat, rather than as an answer.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:18

12

Context does not always matter. if someone flagged (I am making this up) "I hate C++ template metaprogramming" then even out of context that is not bad: one may disagree with that opinion, but it is not offensive. Misogynist comments are rude, sexist, unprofessional, and have no place on this site regardless of context.
– user439793Dec 2 '15 at 3:50

@brasofilo oh I know, I saw enough. I have a fairly strong opinion on the matter that can best be summed up by xkcd: Free Speech
– user439793Dec 2 '15 at 4:03

12

@CatPlusPlus: No talking about sex is not misogynistic. But the two messages Brad quoted in his answer aren't really about sex are they? Even if they are intended to be sarcastic, joking or over-the-top, they only tangentially relate to the most intimate act two humans can share. We know this because the messages were posted in a public chat room. I interpret them as being about power and conquest, but I could be wrong. If so, well, I wish they'd been phrased more appropriately for the medium.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 4:24

7

@JonEricson I literally do not understand this post. Power and conquest? What. What Jerry said is a in-my-experience life anecdote and it's not even bad in any way shape or form (unless people wanting to date before sex is bad? Is that what I'm missing here?) and I do not follow any reasoning that arrives at construing it as hateful or demeaning towards women. I could say the same thing about myself, wow. thecoshman is reiterating the idea behind Jerry's message in fairly strong words but that's because it's well into the ban spree campaign and we were all fairly annoyed already.
– Cat Plus PlusDec 2 '15 at 4:44

17

@CatPlusPlus: Oh, wait. You were in the middle of a ban spree? Ok, now I totally understand everything.</sarcasm> Seriously, though, if you think amping up the strength of your language is a rational solution to other people objecting to your words, then you are in for a rather unpleasant future.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 4:52

25

@CatPlusPlus: I'm not judging you or your community. I am, however, disgusted with just about everything I read in your transcript this afternoon. If you are serious about fixing the problem with how people react to messages in the C++ Lounge, you should find ways to respond to flags and bans other than trolling for more.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 5:19

Regardless of how one splits hairs over whether the comments were misogynist, about sex in general, tame, invective, or anything else... why is this even a discussion? Chat guidelines are basically "stuff you could say around the water cooler at work." If I had heard any of that stuff at the water cooler, y'all would be fired. Here we have representatives from Stack Exchange, who own the chat room, saying that what happened is not acceptable. Then we have others using this free service that can be revoked arguing the point. I just don't get it.
– user439793Dec 2 '15 at 16:34

11

@sbi: My post takes no position on whether the room should have been frozen. The point of linking is to show that the Lounge is no stranger to controversy. The room has shown itself to be a poor neighbor in the past. So it's probably about time we figure out some zoning regulations. Past time.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 17:57

11

@sbi: No, controversy has it's place. That place might even be the Lounge. Personally, I don't see a lot of benefit, however. It seems like people are choosing to be jerks just to show that they can get away with it. The internet is awash in places where being a jerk is not only allowed, but encouraged. Stack Overflow is not one of those places.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 20:09

9

@sbi: I've had conversations about sex at work. I've also talked with co-workers about religion, parenting, politics and all sorts of controversial topics. But I also know my co-workers well enough to know which topics could be talked about constructively. It sounds like you have that same advantage in your job. But do you know how all the people in the Lounge feel about those topics? Or more to the point, if a co-worker asked you to take your conversation elsewhere, would you spend the rest of the day complaining about it? Whatever the initial conversation, the response has been childish.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 20:21

16

@sbi: 1. Trying to make this about rednecks doesn't really help your case, and 2. "fucking on the first date" doesn't remotely qualify as constructive discourse.
– Robert Harvey♦Dec 2 '15 at 20:36

I believe you've made several errors in your assessment of the problem here:

Moderators are not elected to be curators. They're elected to moderate: to mediate disputes, rein in excesses, solve intractable problems. Curators wear tiny glasses and carry light brushes; moderators wear heavy gloves and carry shovels.

Chat is moderated. First and foremost by those who participate in it, with elected moderators serving as exception handlers in the manner described above.

Moderators generally do not enjoy moderating chat. Heck, I suspect that no onelikes moderating chat; an obligation to fulfill the duties they volunteered for is generally the only reason why a moderator would step in to do so.

The conversation you quote from came a fair bit after another moderator had stepped into the room and calmly tried to provide a bit of guidance; he was met with a fairly overwhelming response, nearly all of it negative and unproductive. My final opinion on this scene was that a handful of hot-headed room regulars took what should have been at most a 5-minute interaction between two or three people and turned it into a day-long circus.

I've come to believe we need three things to help avoid situations like this in the future:

Clearer documentation on the fundamental nature of chat. Disagreeing with the removal of problematic content is natural; every moderator action is a judgement call. Disagreeing with the very notion that chat is moderated or that chat should be moderated reflects a profound misunderstanding of why chat exists and what chat is. We can do better at explaining this.

Better moderation guidance for room owners and moderators. The tooling available in chat is... not well-documented. There are ways of intervening without getting mobbed; for moderators who routinely delete lengthy, unproductive discussions on the main site, it should be easily possible to rein in problems in chat without sticking their foot in the proverbial tar-baby.

More deletion. If it wasn't so rare, it wouldn't be worthy of so much note.

I am shocked by the implication that I would "cover up" rape jokes or even condone them. I'm willing to accept that I might have failed as a room owner "moderating" there, but I will repeat my statement made before:

This "liking rape" allegation - is it more than an urban myth? If that thing is literally true, and not a lone act of provocation or blown way out of proportion, then I'll personally vouch for deletion of the room. (Hint, I'm not buying it yet)

I stand by that.

Why wasn't I contacted immediately? I know I'm one of many room owners, but Brad Larson specifically links my message to make a point. He could have consulted me. Anyone could have.

This post is dis-satisfactory because I can't get information I need to actually know what we're looking at. I guess that'll have to wait. I understand mods are busy. But I've given this the entire evening from 20:00-4:34am and need to post this so I can sleep well.

To be completed

¹ there's no way to tell until someone helps me out with the inaccessible message

² And raw a lineup for my own reference (I'm missing the message saying something like "We have an understanding") (view source)

For the record, sehe and I had a private discussion about today's events earlier. Moderators are always available for private chats if needed. Just raise a flag on main or, if you're an RO, invite us to a chat.
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:28

4

@EdCottrell Not about this. About some of the lead up. Never did this messages linked by Brad Larson enter the discussion. I'd be happy to take it offline. But right now I need to give my life priority (2 hours of sleep is already way too little)
– seheDec 2 '15 at 3:29

3

Fair enough. Just want to avoid the false impression no one has responded to your requests for discussion.
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:30

2

@EdCottrell I've been raising flags to you, to Brad, to Robert Harvey, here, in comments to Brads' answer, in our existing private chat (repeatedly). Nothing worked. For hours. (I do thank you for taking the time earlier. But right now I feel the priority should have multiplied, not gone away). Tomorrow, then.
– seheDec 2 '15 at 3:30

2

Re the "liking rape" comment: yes, it happened. You posted the very next comment. You won't be able to see the deleted comment, I don't think, so I'm linking to your immediately following comment: source
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:36

14

The timeline on the rape comment started here with your comment "I don't know where you came from, and your forced entry was a bit iffy, but you're gaining points", to which mafagafogig replied (in the now-deleted message) "@sehe When she likes the rape in the end." which you then followed up with "Sorta kinda I guess" and then "peeps, no flagging here. If there's an issue, we'll quietly signal the mods."
– Brad Larson♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:37

6

@BradLarson The next statement is also relevant: "It'll have to be worth more than this, though"
– Ed Cottrell♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:38

5

@BradLarson thanks Brad, finally confirmation it was the new guy who posted that. Can we have a chat? (To everyone: I'm capable of seeing the transcript. Please keep the noise down)
– seheDec 2 '15 at 3:38

7

I should note that's an entirely separate issue from what is being discussed above, but it is just one of several flagged conversations we've had to address lately. Someone had stated that they had flagged the rape comment when it happened, but the flag was quietly dismissed. It was brought back up today after this had all occurred and was dealt with them. The alleged dismissal of the flag was something that concerned me, and I read your following comment as condoning that. If I misinterpreted this, I apologize.
– Brad Larson♦Dec 2 '15 at 3:41

1

@BradLarson I truly think a quick chat would be the appropriate way to shed light here. I can try in the comments if you insist. If I don't hear from someone over the next 5 minutes, I'll be trying to sleep and try to do my disclosure the comments/answer text tomorrow. It will just take heaps more of my energy. And perhaps not work. Note this private room: chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/96739/… please feel welcome to join
– seheDec 2 '15 at 3:45

4

The two transcript links you use in point 2 to support your argument that not flagging is some sort of official policy... don't. The first one appears to be talking about not spamming flags, and the second one is instructing to use custom flags, after handling a whole bunch. Would you like to withdraw that point?
– Nathan TuggyDec 2 '15 at 5:35

1

@NathanTuggy I will not withdraw that point, as it is certainly an arrangement, that these messages do refer to. Also, the arrangement itself was clearly not made in the lounge (hence you find it ambiguous) and we've objected about that at the time. I might withdraw it if either JonClements or Mysticial says I misrepresented it. (Making sure they see this now).
– seheDec 2 '15 at 7:51

1

@MrsEd I thought we already agreed it was the new guy who posted that comment. Also, think about this- there are over 4.2 million messages in that room. 4.2 million opportunities to say disgusting and vile things, and yet 99.99% of the transcript is clean.
– nickDec 2 '15 at 16:04

2

@MrsEd I am sad that even my (predicated) promise sickened you. I am mainly sad because I don't understand and consequently don't know what would make you less annoyed. I'm still finding the time to clear up this particular episode since I've received the missing factual information in the meantime. It will be night work again I fear. I have nothing less than decency in mind and hope I'll not be the only one that (tries to) learn from these incidents. Regards
– seheDec 2 '15 at 16:06

4

@sehe just to make clear, I was not horrified by what you were saying, but what your were referring to. You do understand that yes? The thing about the room is this: many of us have nothing to do with it, unless it comes out to the public attention as it has here. So it's not like people are looking to destroy your room, but objecting to this behaviour. And my knee jerk reaction is extreme, and that's not good either, I know. It's just not what is expected on a programming site. You understand? So it's a shock. A genuine shock and outrage.
– Yvette Colomb♦Dec 2 '15 at 16:44

Perspective of a lounger that isn't particularly caught in the heat one way or another. Additionally, this is more of a general tale than addressing the particular events that triggered the current situation. And lastly, the lounge hosts multiple (overlapping) subsets of people that have different discussions and different behaviors (even different behaviors from the same person depending on the context). I'm referring to the 'meme' and 'shock' culture in the lounge below.

The core issue here is a mentality prevalent in the lounge compared to the moderators. The lounge attracts members with a distinct flavour of cynicism and lack of political correctness. Both are used - between lounge members - as comedic relief. Extreme sarcasm, shock, absurdities and politically incorrect humor are often employed. Then other people come in, take offense, flag, and leave, without ever taking into consideration context and/or intent.

Is this professional? No. The general language, mood and topics are distinctly not professional in the lounge, admittedly more so than other rooms. That's part of why it's a lounge - a place to unwind.

However, if the goal of SO chat was to provide a professional environment, I believe it has given the entirely wrong impression. To me it always has felt that SO was the professional and formal side, while SO chat was the place where you'd let loose and discuss without the shackles of formality and professionalism. I might be entirely misguided in this impression, but the general tone in many chat rooms reinforces my belief in this.

But I digress. The point is, when a mod comes into the lounge to enforce the political correctness and professionalism expected on the main site, it really stirs the lounge. Because it attacks it in the very reason people come to the lounge: for the humor. Most notably because in the vast majority of the cases a stranger that never has and never will contribute to the lounge comes along to take offense to something that never has and never will apply to them.

The views above are my own and may or may not represent the views of other loungers. Additionally, the views of other loungers often do not represent mine.

You've made the terrible mistake of using "professional" in your argument. rip
– user703016Dec 2 '15 at 2:42

4

@GregorMcGregor Except I'm not making an argument or taking a stance at all. Merely providing an explanation of why I believe things blew up. I also like that I got a downvote in under 30 seconds - a timeframe in which it's physically impossible to read my answer.
– orlpDec 2 '15 at 2:42

52

Speaking to the purpose of chat... "This site is an extension of Stack Overflow, so discussion should more or less revolve around the same topics you'd find at Stack Overflow — but in an interactive, less strictly Q&A focused way. Do have fun, but please keep it professional and always be respectful of your fellow community members." chat.stackoverflow.com/faq#about
– hichris123Dec 2 '15 at 2:47

There is a place that is safe for the kind of unprofessional cynical shock-and-awe offensive content that you speak of... reddit.
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:12

4

@TinyGiant I think I am going to fully stand behind Cat wanting to ban the use of "professional" in this discussion.
– Bartek BanachewiczDec 2 '15 at 10:32

3

According to your own admission then the existance of the lounge in its current format to begin with is directly counter to the rules set for SO chatrooms.
– MagischDec 4 '15 at 9:34

@Magisch I thought that already was rather obvious considering the backlash.
– orlpDec 4 '15 at 9:44

4

@orlp the question then is why it was not immedeatly deleted when this became "rather obvious"
– MagischDec 4 '15 at 9:45

@Magisch Because simple deletion is crude and ineffective. The lounge is a collective of users consisting of over a million reputation. We're not trolls that simply need to be or can be shoo'd away. I understand that the status quo needs to be changed, and the lounge needs to move away from the unprofessional discussion (on this site), because it's not wanted here. That was not clear to me before - like others - as I've written in my answer above.
– orlpDec 4 '15 at 9:50

2

@orlp I think that a deletion and full cleaning of house is in order. In addition to finding the worst offenders and barring them from using SO chat either permanently or for a very long time. If the room then needs to be remade, it can be, with different owners that hopefully wont allow such commentary to become this commonplace.
– MagischDec 4 '15 at 9:53

3

@Magisch And I simply disagree. No further value is generated through deletion, and it will anger valuable community members. The moderators are actively working with us to keep the lounge within SO's standards from here on.
– orlpDec 4 '15 at 9:57

3

@orlp I disagree that anyone angered by the deletion of a toxic chatroom with a toxic history and owners who did nothing about it would be considered valueable or even desireable community member at all.
– MagischDec 4 '15 at 10:02

This isn't really an answer--it's an extended reply to Jon Ericsson's comment claiming that my original post was misogynistic.

Short summary: this is not merely a little bit wrong, but is actually the precise opposite of reality.

The post in question recommended women who wanted to have at least some sort of relationship, rather than proceeding directly to having sex.

The misogynistic advice would, of course, be precisely the opposite--to go for simple "hook ups", and avoid any actual relationship.

So no, it was not even close to misogynistic--in fact, so far the opposite that I'm forced to wonder whether those who want to suppress it aren't being misogynistic (in a passive-aggressive way) themselves. That's certainly not the only explanation--for one obvious alternative, it's also possible they simply failed to look past their prejudices about the language used to analyze what was really being advised.

I should probably also admit that a few times I really have posted a few things that probably were misogynistic to at least some degree (in one case, perhaps even a fairly large degree). I don't claim that was a good thing, by any means, but will point out something that most regulars in the Lounge already know: my marriage has been in trouble for some time now, and I've come quite close to getting divorced a couple of times in the last year or so. Many of the Lounge denizens have acted more or less as an unofficial support group during this time.

As far as the claims that discussion of sex (or my marriage, for that matter) have no place in a professional chat room, I have to disagree about that as well. I've discussed the same (and similar) subjects with work colleagues at a number of work places (including my current one). The notion that a professional relationship precludes close friendships or truly personal discussions strikes me as utterly ludicrous.

I suspect the use of the word "fuck" in the original transcript (rather than "having sex" as your verbiage of choice) probably derails your logic.
– Robert Harvey♦Dec 2 '15 at 6:45

3

4) Jerry, of all people?! Seriously?? Jerry?? That is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. TTBOMK, I have been banned once. (I only learned about that time later, so there could have been other such cases.) If Jerry has been banned more than a 1000th of this, it's way too much, because he's at the very least that more reasonable and calm than I am.
– sbiDec 2 '15 at 11:27

5

@sbi "then maybe outsiders shouldn't judge what's going on the room?" - Maybe, maybe not, but the room still has to follow SO's rules / guide lines, REGARDLESS of who created the room, don't like that? Create / join a IRC or something else. (While the last part sounds harsh and that isn't my intention, I simply don't know how to phrase it differently)
– EpodaxDec 2 '15 at 11:59

4

@sbi In that regard I'd refer to hichris123 comment on the answer below, " ... so discussion should more or less revolve around the same topics you'd find at Stack Overflow ... " See chat.stackoverflow.com/faq#about - and in that matter, under the "Do I have to be nice?" part of the faq, there is this bit "If you see an inappropriate, spam, or offensive chat message, please use the hover menu at the far right of each chat message to flag it" I would classify sex as inappropriate on a site for programming.
– EpodaxDec 2 '15 at 12:56

6

To address only the "this isn't misogyny" point: it becomes misogyny when men speak for women with regard to what women want.
– TylerHDec 2 '15 at 15:32

@TylerH AND NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN WORK HERE.
– Cat Plus PlusDec 2 '15 at 16:34

7

@JerryCoffin Nobody? "Most women want at least something of a date before they [...]" That's someone speaking for women. In the literal sense. And at no point have I accused you, personally, of misogyny, by the way, so you can take your thinly-veiled threat-not-threat and save it for someone else. You should make sure someone is actually slandering you before you try to intimidate them with legal buzz words.
– TylerHDec 2 '15 at 16:47

8

@JerryCoffin Making an irrelevant analogy is called an inductive fallacy. The sky is not a person, nor is it a protected class. You've also not pointed out any studies. You've only mentioned that they exist. Trump also mentioned that he sent PIs to Hawaii to determine the truth of President Obama's birth, but that never actually happened. And no, if you read up, you'll see I've only said "someone", not "you". Please, words are important.
– TylerHDec 2 '15 at 16:54

4

@JerryCoffin You're free to back from any statement you want; you've made quite a few bad ones in the past hour. I won't hold it against you if you wish to rescind any of your comments later.
– TylerHDec 2 '15 at 17:06

@sbi: The lounge is listed as the one and only chat room for the c++ tag. If I'm new to the site and I want to talk about C++, where else should I go? There's also a long tradition of naming chat rooms as specific third places (taverns, bars, etc.), but that doesn't mean you can say and do anything you like. When a moderator asks that you tone things down, that's not an invitation to get more gross. Real lounges usually have private rooms where people can be a bit more free in their conversations. Please try to be considerate.
– Jon Ericson♦Dec 2 '15 at 17:37

@Cerbrus: I see that the only thing you responded to was a trigger word. I take it you didn't know anything to answer to the arguments that made a case for the use of that word?
– sbiDec 2 '15 at 20:45

15

I'm not going to discuss arguments, where you are calling a group of users "Religious zealots" or "bigots". I find it hard to take someone seriously when that person has to resort to swearing, in a discussion.
– CerbrusDec 2 '15 at 20:48

Imagine this gets flagged. You know what differentiates a regex-based profanity filter from a moderator when handling this case? The ability to look at the context of the message and assess whether the post at hand was actually violating guidelines, practices and common sense.

What sadly seems to be turning into a lynch mob was supposed to be a look at a moderator acting like a robo-reviewer, and when faced with such accusation, instead of approaching the matter carefully, used the powers given to him to basically come out as right and innocent in the whole situation. You have to imagine the community being given such a treatment really didn't like it.

That being said, since this already is a lynch mob, and "let's nuke the Lounge" seems to be a fashionable badge to be worn on your chest nowadays, I'd like to ask; if you don't think it was the moderator that was at error here, who is to blame?

Just a recap: Lounge is made of three things.

A room with a peculiar internal number 10, Which yes, pretty much means a very long history and tradition.

A set of owners with rather pristine reputation when it comes to behaving reasonably.

A few dozens of individuals, each with their own understanding of SO rules and policies.

It's hardly reasonable to blame #1. It's just a number. Hypothethically, any room could become (and has become) a source of content that was over the line.

I could see how you'd like to blame the room owners for that - but do think about that for a second. Room owners have asked for better moderation tools for years. Sure, the kick facility was provided after like 3 years of constant nagging, but flags, which apparently seem to be one of the ignition points here, remain a largely unsolved and often complained about subject, even by moderators themselves. That being said, if you remove the current set, you'd need to find a new set of people with enough C++ knowledge to moderate the C++ community chatroom across all timezones. Otherwise you'd be faced with the endless stream of "another C++ room" popping up which was what Lounge was reenacted to prevent in the first place.

And if you choose to blame the community, please remember, that we're not monolithic. If you want to "nuke" our community, then I fully expect you that you bring each and every person participating in the room to the "SO court" and evaluate whether a suspension is in order. Note however, that I would strongly vouch for doing this for every other member of other, even slightly controversial chatrooms; as you've said yourselves, the rules are universal for everyone.

So if you're saying "please nuke the Lounge" just because you've managed to read last two days out of five years of transcript because it "sounds right" to you, then please think twice about the actual execution of the idea and what it means and how unfair it sounds to all the people that stay in the room and behave reasonably, just because you've managed to cherry-pick an account that pops in and says "rape" or "fuck" as an example of the room's ongoing behaviour.

The thing about the context of your message, is that there is none. The message it is in reply to is an image that has been deleted.
– Andy♦Dec 2 '15 at 13:42

1

@Andy I can bet that someone would read only the "What's wrong about rape culture" part and make a decision based solely on that. This kind of mindless evaluation is what I'm getting at. Horse.JS Twitter account excels at this. While fun there, I don't think it's a proper action course for a moderator on SO.
– Bartek BanachewiczDec 2 '15 at 13:51

8

What else should they make a decision on? You argue that context is important (it is), but then provide an example with none. The only thing to base an opinion on, in this case, if your linked comment.
– Andy♦Dec 2 '15 at 14:15

1

@Andy In this case the context for the first part of the message is the latter part of it and gosh I have no idea why I have to explain it. If even such simple things are so hard to understand for people having voice here then I don't get why do they feel they have anything reasonable to say in this discussion at all.
– Bartek BanachewiczDec 2 '15 at 14:54

3

@BartekBanachewicz Are you claiming that the "It's one of the most important agro industries" is the part that makes it okay? I'd been assuming that was still in the part that needed some context to make it be not horrible.
– resuemanDec 2 '15 at 15:06

A joke that sounds terrible at least unless you make a connection that most people initially won't... This is a great example of provocative, alienating, and inappropriate content that one should anticipate leading to a possible ban on a site like Stack Overflow.
– JeremyDec 2 '15 at 15:41

4

@JeremyBanks the only thing I was able to extract from your comment was "I'm obsessed with trigger words". Words change their meaning basing on context. I don't think SO community is and ever was such blatantly ignorant as to disregard that and pick the most offending meaning they could find without giving any thought to what's being meant.
– Bartek BanachewiczDec 2 '15 at 15:46

4

So, pretty much someone used a double entendre and got called out on it and rather than admitting that it was in poor taste and letting it go, you attempted to claim that they were completely innocent.
– apaulDec 3 '15 at 15:51

Why do you need to have this conversation on Stack Overflow chat then?
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:20

1

@TinyGiant What's wrong with that conversation being on Stack Overflow chat? It's a conversation like any other.
– ShoeDec 2 '15 at 3:23

9

@Jefery It is a conversation inherently about sex which has no place in a professional programming chatroom.
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:30

6

Sex has nothing to do with programming, at least as far as I can see.
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:31

16

All chatrooms on the Stack Overflow chat network should be professional chatrooms. Some come closer to that than others, but actively trying to be the opposite of what is considered civil and professional is unacceptable.
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:32

5

@TinyGiant So why aren't these or these messages also deleted? Talk about double standards.
– ShoeDec 2 '15 at 3:35

4

@Jefery I'm not very fond of the JavaScript room because of that, and I don't tend to frequent the Python chat room. I do agree that both of those links point to disgusting content that should never occur in a Stack Overflow chatroom. I'm glad you agree with me.
– Tiny GiantDec 2 '15 at 3:41

14

Pro Tip:Learn how to use the SE platform properly. You will then be in a better position to provide informative and constructive dialogue.
– Robert Harvey♦Dec 2 '15 at 4:23

@Jefery whats wrong with it is that SO and by extension SO chatrooms are there for programming help, and conversations such as this are a) too offensive for the site and b) blatantly off topic
– MagischDec 4 '15 at 9:35